In last week's Canada Day address, Prime Minister Paul
Martin lauded the alleged virtues of the Canadian people, claiming: "Our
compassion toward those in need and the inclusive nature of our society are
second to no other."

Is that right? A truly compassionate and inclusive people
would safeguard the lives of all innocent human beings in their society. But
do we Canadians fulfil this primordial obligation? Evidently not.

Thanks to the calamitous decision of the Supreme Court of
Canada in Regina v. Morgentaler in 1988, Canada is the only purported
democracy in the world that provides no legal protection for the lives of the
most vulnerable and neediest of our fellow human beings -- babies in the womb.
In Canada, it's perfectly legal to deliberately kill even a healthy boy or
girl within seconds before birth.

In the United States, the commission of such a barbaric act
is a criminal offence, thanks to congressional enactment of the Partial Birth
Abortion Act. In signing the act into law, President George W. Bush described
partial-birth abortion as involving "the partial delivery of a live boy
or girl, and a sudden, violent end of that life.

"Our nation owes its children a different and better
welcome," Bush said. "The bill I am about to sign protecting
innocent new life from this practice reflects the compassion and humanity of
America."

What has Martin done to outlaw partial-birth abortion in
Canada? Absolutely nothing. Worse, neither he nor any of the other major party
leader promised during the recent election campaign -- perhaps the tawdriest
in Canadian history -- to do anything to end the disgraceful lack of legal
safeguards for the lives of pre-born babies.

To the contrary, Martin declared: "As a legislator, I
believe that women should have the right to choose."

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper refused to take a stand
on the issue other than to promise: "A Harper Conservative government
would not legislate on abortion."

Granted, the views of Canadian politicians on such
controversial moral issues are largely irrelevant. Through arbitrary
interpretations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme
Court of Canada has taken it upon itself to determine public policies in
defiance of the express will of Parliament and the provincial legislatures.

A corresponding disposition of judges in the United States
to subvert the legislative process does not sit well with Bush. Referring to
the Partial Birth Abortion Act, he vowed: "The executive branch will
vigorously defend this law against any who would try to overturn it in the
courts."

In contrast, Martin has promised that he would never invoke
the notwithstanding clause to prevent the courts from striking down duly
enacted laws on abortion, gay marriage, child pornography or any other issue.
Martin subscribes to the perverse view that unelected judges, rather than
elected representatives of the people should determine public policy on
crucial moral questions.

In signing the Partial Birth Abortion Act, Bush observed:
"The wide agreement amongst men and women on this issue, regardless of
political party, shows that bitterness in political debate can be overcome by
compassion and the power of conscience." Quite so.